The differences are: On YouTube, you can view up to 1080p (“Hi-Def”), while the version released to the podcast feed is 720p, fewer pixels. The podcast (audio, episode 111) itself is an audio extension of the movie, explaining some of the math (or “maths” for peeps “across the pond”) in more detail and discussing one or two deleted scenes — additional bits that weren’t central to the story so didn’t make it into the final cut of the movie.

As I say at the end, I really do want feedback on this. If negative, then make it constructive. If you’re a fan of Richard Hoagland’s work, and you disagree with the movie, then let me know WHY, not just that you disagree because I’m wrong. That gets us no where and is useless.

And, if you like the movie, then make sure to share it around. Delusions of grandeur don’t manifest on their own, gosh darnit!

I’ve done the same for the video, for some reason both Hoaglands and Phil Plaits pages on the ‘face’ while linked have been made invisible to readers (Hope it does not happen to your material.). Watched the video, it was very good and quite interesting. For some reason I kept thinking of the BBC TV version of ‘Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy’, specifically the scenes where they were depicting Guide entries. Keep up the good work!

Excellent, Stuart. The video display makes the message much easier to grasp for a layman like me. (I can’t imagine following this presentation by audio alone.) Although the video took a bit longer to load, the wait was well worth the extra time as my audio has been stopping numerous times in the podcasts forcing me to start over and then skip to the previous stopping point. (That’s obviously my problem, not yours.)

That was tremendous Stuart, well done, a great first ‘vodcast’! It was well presented, nice and logical, really good graphics and animations – looking forward to the next one. It’s clear how much work you’ve put into it. I presume you must have some tools to help perform this kind of feature analysis? Although this absolutely destroys Hoagland’s claims I suspect he will simply ignore it – scientific methodology and facts are bad for his business.

Ah. It’s a code I wrote. I had a model perfect pentagon, added random numbers to each vertex. Then I used geometry (since I had the {x,y} positions of every point) to calculate all the angles. Then all the ratios and all the trig. Then I looped through those values and compared them with the “special numbers” and had a counter that counted how many matched to whatever precision I had set.

I coded that in normal analysis software I use and then learned one of the coding languages in the 3D animation software and ported the code there, calling on the shapes to adjust based on the results of that code, each time.

I re-listened to the podcast and noticed that you stated that Hoagland et al might not have had access to computers. As someone who grew up in the 80’s I can say that Hoagland might have had access to a handheld or desktop calculator, though given the maths errors you picked up probably not.

I finally managed to get onto my podcast backlog and watch the movie. Despite it being very mathy 😉 I enjoyed it. Now I know you said not to complain… I’m not. I’m more of a visual person so having the graphics helped my understand a lot, especially given I struggled through the #111 podcast. I thought the explanations in both were very good and I was highly impressed with the graphics and animations. You seriously do way too much work on this 😉 I don’t know how you find the time. More videos please!